You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
I wonder about sackings like this, is it really all her fault (not to defend her too much, I believe she has been under pressure about something else prior). Can it be a bigger systematic issue?
MailOnline can reveal that Dame Cressida, 61, still has plenty to smile about as she will walk away from her post with up to three pensions estimated to pay out £160,000-a-year - plus a pay-off in the region of £575,000.
She can also look forward to possibly earning a small fortune from lucrative consultancy work, or even taking on a new high-profile public role.
There is also a chance that she may join her predecessor Bernard Hogan-Howe in the House of Lords where she could qualify for a daily £323 attendance allowance.
Hogan-Howe left the Met in 2016 with a £9million gold-plated pension giving him an annual taxpayer-funded income of £181,500 a year.
Alternatively, she may now choose to put her feet up at her £1million village home which she shares with her partner Helen Ball, who is a retired Metropolitan Police inspector.
The pay-out is simply due to the nature of the role. People in that sort of role are prohibited from leaving without giving a substantial notice period. Otherwise someone in her position could leave giving minimal notice. That sort of role will always have these sorts of notice built in. To give some context, a certain West Ham footballer probably has a 3-year contract. It would likely cost £20 million to remove him.
"Tax-payer funded pension pot"? That's not untrue. But it is misleading. Policemen have a Final Salary Pension Scheme. The last time I looked, police paid 11% of their salary into the scheme, although I believe the rules are different for the very highest ranks. Police are not well paid in comparison to similar jobs in this and other countries. It is the Pension that makes up for this. She has also been in the Force for 40 years-the normal maximum pension is reached after 30 years' service.
It is also the case that severance packages pay more into the Pension for tax advantages.
It is the position that commands those perks. I would not want that sort of job-she gets blamed for everything. Even so, she seemed ill-suited to the demands of that particular job.
It does slightly amuse me that people keep talking about the need to modernise the Police Force, and to stop homophobia and misogyny.
Are people unaware that the Police have more LGBT members than just about any other job? And I'm unconvinced that removing a high-profile Gay Woman is going to magically stop public-school educated men of a certain age getting nearly all the top jobs
She did not "resign". She agreed in that meeting to announce that she was leaving, and to work as much of her notice period that would benefit the Police/Mayor/Home Secretary, in return for certain benefits. Part of that deal would be that no-one is allowed to say that. There would have been a Settlement Agreement between the parties.
Her failure would have been due to a variety of reasons. Some of that would be down to her-other parts were likely due to either the Mayor or Home Secretary.
After her dramatic resignation on Thursday, London's most senior police officer Dame Cressida **** (pictured left yesterday) is in line for a payout of more than £500,000 on top of a £160,000-a-year pension, in what has been described as a 'dreadful reward for failure'. Under the terms of her two-year extended contract, signed in September, Dame Cressida, 61, can expect to receive her £246,109 annual salary with £3,074 benefits for the remaining 25 months she had left to serve until April 2024. She will also receive a bumper pension payout because it is effectively the second time that she has 'retired' from the Metropolitan Police after clocking up nearly 37 years' service. According to The Times, both the Met and City Hall refused to comment on whether Dame Cressida would receive the full amount, but Mr Khan (pictured with Dame Cressida in 2017) is said to be resisting handing over the huge severance package.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10504449/Cressida-****-Sadiq-Khan-war-500-000-payoff-plus-160-000-year-pension.html
Forget the Pension. She has paid in for it. It is hers. Unless we are seriously going to try and fine her £millions for not being very good at her job. It is not the year 1600. Hands up who knows people who have their pension (worth £millions in this case) taken away because they were a bit rubbish in their job?
The £500k "pay-off" (or the salary she is entitled to under her fixed-term contract). That is more interesting. She has clearly been Constructively Dismissed. She was in charge of approximately 45,000 staff. 1 of her bosses chose to go to the National Media about her performance. Very clearly, and very publicly, undermining her. And zero support from the Home Sec.
Were she to go to an Employment Tribunal or the High Court, nothing is ever certain. But I think it very likely that she would get a large portion of that money. Then there will be the fun of discovering which bad decisions were hers, and which were due to threats/orders from either the Mayor or the Home Secretary. That is just not going to happen.
Because the thought of her going to Court, or writing a book, will strike fear at the heart of both major parties.
Surely send her on gardening leave for the last year of her contract and save £325,000+, or make her clean the bogs, or sweep up (literally not metaphorically), anything but let her get double bubble for being so bad at her job that she gets forced out/has to quit.
I know it's the lawyers who negotiate these contracts but surely it has to stop? Whoever took her on on those terms also needs sacking.
She had a contract that was due to run until April 2022. In September 2021, she was given a 2 year extension to that contract. Which took it to April 2024. So she still had a contract with more than 2 years to run.
She is not getting "double bubble".
Also-if you decide not to renew a contract and just let it expire, that counts as a dismissal under Employment Law, and she would have had a claim for Unfair/Wrongful Dismissal. Which is 1 of the reasons why extensions are given ahead of the end of the contract (the other being you have to be able to run the Force by planning ahead).
It is also possible to literally ask her to clean the bogs. But she would say no, and claim a large amount of extra money. Because being spiteful is not a smart move with our money.
I don't mean to be rude. I just have never understood why people think that Law is simple, and that everything they don't like is the fault of the Lawyers. I don't tell a car mechanic how to do his job, blame him when my car breaks down, or claim he should have been able to foresee problems months down the line.
The Mayor and Home Secretary gave her the contract extension. On terms agreed between them and Ms D1ck, and embodied in a Contract drawn up by the Employer's Lawyers.
Apparently then she has a contract where, no matter how bad she is at her job, she gets paid for the two years of the contract. Nice.
Also, I was under no illusion that Law is simple, but I certainly think that the above situation is the fault of the lawyers that advised the Mayor and Home Secretary that those terms were in any way a good idea. Ms D ick's lawyers? Yep, did a great job. The same way that you can argue that the lawyers who get drink drivers or even murderers off on a technicality do a great job. Great for them and their clients, for the rest of the public, maybe not so great.
Choices have to be made. Yes, it is true that bad ones get rewarded. But good ones can't just walk away with next to no notice. It is a 2-way street. The Lawyers advising the Mayor/Home Sec would know this. They would also know that, not only had the last 10 or 20 Commissioners all had this sort of contract, that Ms D1ck had already had the benefit of 1 previously as Commissioner. I also expect that she had had one in her previous job, which was clearly in MI5/6 or similar. The minute anyone tries to change that, legal problems would be inevitable. There was always going to be a contract like this or a big pay-off.
The lawyers who get criminals off on a technicality? Easy to blame the Lawyers. But it is the fault of the hole in the Law.
I have never made a Law in my life. That is the job of politicians. I just represented people to the best of my ability, according to the Laws in front of me. Including some people that I secretly hoped would lose. Because that was my job. No different to the Barman serving the guy everyone hopes will leave the pub.
PS-it is not the Met that have given the Mayor a vote of no confidence. It is the Met Police Federation. Which is the Police equivalent of a Trade Union. Representing most policemen, but not the very highest ranks.
In effect, the people Sadiq is unhappy about. So tit for tat.